very basically divided into three jurisdictions because we're dealing with two sovereign States and with the District itself, which is a unique situation.

Now, such matters as transportation throughout the metropolitan area clearly are regional matters, and if things of that kind were handled under one government, many problems would be solved. Mr. CABELL. I see.

Then why do you oppose retrocession? Wouldn't that do the same thing?

Mr. SPENCER. No, it wouldn't because you would leave the small central city, you see, under the retrocession idea, and I think that you leave it with a lot of very serious and difficult government problems.

Mr. CABELL. Well, that's just right down here on the Mall where the Federal buildings are. There's no one living there. It would be just like additional buildings for the capital here.

Mr. SPENCER. Well, I believe that the area that would be left in the central city by most of these bills is apt to run from, say, K Street on south to Independence Avenue or something like that, but the fact is that there are quite a few commercial establishments in that area. There are even some residences.

Mr. BROYHILL. The enlargement proposal has been made before, but if we go beyond taking in the County of Arlington and the city of Alexandria, this would require a constitutional amendment because the Constitution does state that the District would be created by land ceded from these two states not exceeding a 10 mile square. That's what happened originally when they made the 10 mile square by taking land from Virginia and Maryland. The Virginia portion was retroceded in 1846. You are absolutely correct, Mr. Spencer, that we do have three jurisdictions now working in the solution of many problems that overlap political boundaries, such as transportation, communication, movement of people and goods, water supply, and sewage treatment.

Mr. SPENCER. Also, if we enlarge the District that way, it would permit-improve the financial situation very greatly because it would improve our tax base.

Mr. CABELL. Bring some of their money into the District.

Mr. SPENCER. That's right.

Mr. BROYHILL. We are working in the direction of a unified approach on many of these problems. In fact, the creation of the Transit Authority is in that direction.

I agree with you, that the more we can set up these interstate compacts to solve these problems that go across boundary lines, such as general services and movement of people and goods, the better for the entire metropolitan area.

Mr. SPENCER. And quite a lot has already been done in that direction, but the financial aspect of it is important, and that you can't do with a state compact.

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Mr. CABELL. One other thing, Mr. Broyhill pointed out that it would require a constitutional amendment to bring in those areas into the District, now with the Constitution specifically providing that the

Congress of the United States cannot allow this Committee to grant home rule without a constitutional amendment.

Mr. SPENCER. Well, I don't think that the Congress can completely divest itself of legislative control over the District without a constitutional amendment. As I understand these home rule bills, Congress would still have that power, but it would simply be delegated to the local legislature in the first instance, but if Congress wanted to reverse the city council, it could at any time, but if you want to get away completely from the legislative power of Congress, I think it would require a constitutional amendment.

Mr. CABELL. You bring up another interesting question.

You say the Congress can delegate that power. That is a power which is specifically conferred upon and mandated to the Congress by the Constitution, and that same mandate responsibility which is placed upon the Congress, is in the same section requiring the Congress to maintain an army and navy, isn't it.

Mr. SPENCER. Yes.

Mr. CABELL. And to maintain other segments of the government.
Do you think that Congress can delegate those powers?

Mr. SPENCER. I really don't know.

Mr. CABELL. If they can delegate one, why can't they delegate them all and draw their pay and just go home and let someone else do their work?

Mr. SPENCER. Maybe they could. I don't think that that's a practical solution.

Mr. CABELL. Do you really think that Congress can delegate the Constitutional responsibility that is put upon it?

Mr. SPENCER. Frankly, I've never studied that constitutional question, Mr. Chairman, and I really have not developed a personal opinion based on the authorities.

I have continually seen and read in the papers and so on that it would be possibly by Act of Congress to do what is contemplated in this bill which passed the Senate, but perhaps there is a real constitutional question there. I certainly can't say there isn't.

Mr. CABELL. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Gude?

Mr. GUDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Whenever this proposal is made, we have ten minutes of scrimmage in which my colleague from Virginia and I get on the defensive and other members of the Committee get on the offensive, but in all seriousness, several years ago the conference of mayors in the United States organized a program where they were taking Members of Congress around to see American cities and some of their problems, and I went along on several of these because I was interested in how the problems of other cities related to the problems of Washington, and whether they had devised any better solutions.

JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES

And what has struck me, not only in the course of those trips, but also in reading, is the problem of jurisdictional boundaries is a problem that is facing many cities all across America. I recall very well we visited Boston, and the mayor of Boston at that time was very concerned about the extensive tax exempt property within the city, how the

suburbanites came in and used the facilities and yet they couldn't get a commuter tax, and so many of these problems seem to me to be similar to the problems that are spoken of between suburban areas and the inner city of Washington.

Is your feeling that the problem is unique here in Washington in the realtionship of the city to the suburbs, or do you think that this is something really that maybe should be looked at on a national level?

Mr. SPENCER. I would certainly agree with what you are saying that many cities nowadays have these problems of the boundaries of the city limits, and taxing authority and all of that, and in some cases I think their problem is-from a jurisdictional point of view, much simpler than ours, because in a good many places it is merely a matter of getting an act through the state legislature which extends the city limits, and it just has to go through one state legislature. So, I would say that that is a much simpler problem than ours.

Now, of course, there are situations where there is a state line involved in a city such as we have here. For instance, New York and New Jersey, you have the Hudson River between them, but still there is, in a sense, a kind of metropolitan area that is in both states, and there you begin to have more serious problems.

Now, we've got this problem of actual state boundaries, but we also have the additional problem that nobody else has, of the District itself being a unique jurisdiction that has Congress as its legislative body, so I think that perhaps just the practical difficulties of taking care of these jurisdictional lines here are a little bit more difficult than in any other city I know of.

Mr. GUDE. Well, I know that the constitutional question of state boundaries in the law books looks more formidable but I would gather from the intensity of the remarks of the mayor of Boston, that they are no better able to deal with the state legislature of Massachusetts in changing city boundaries, and I think the problem would be just as difficult to resolve in Massachusetts as it would to change the boundaries of the District of Columbia.

I was also a member of the Maryland legislature, and for a number of years the city of Baltimore attempted to extend its boundaries, and we had the most bitter fights and came no where close to extending the boundaries of the city of Baltimore beyond where they

are now.

I would say they are just as fixed as the boundaries of the District of Columbia, and I think we have an amazing degree of regional cooperation in working together here in the metropolitan area between the jurisdictions.

Mr. SPENCER. Undoubtedly there's a lot in what you're saying. It may be very, very difficult just to get one state legislature to extend the boundaries of a city, but here we've get two state legislatures plus the Congress and plus a constitutional amendment, all of which just seems to me a little harder.

Mr. GUDE. It's like comparing two superlatives. They are both impossible from my observation.

Mr. SPENCER. That could easily be true.

Mr. GUDE. I want to commend you. I thought it was a very well thought out statement. You obviously have put a great deal of thought

into it, and I particularly appreciate your strong support for voting representation for the District, and I noted that you underlined full voting representation, meaning two Senators and as many Congressmen as the District would be entitled to if it were a state.

And thank you, Mr. Spencer.

Mr. SPENCER. Thank you.

Mr. ABERNETHY (presiding). Thank you very much.
The next witness is Mr. Carl Shipley.

We're pleased to have you with us, and you may proceed as you like. Mr. SHIPLEY. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my office did not complete preparation of statements for distribution because of the short notice and the fact that I was out of town, and I would like permission to submit a written statement for the record a little later. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF CARL L. SHIPLEY, ESQ., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMBER, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Mr. SHIPLEY. I appear here in my capacity as member of the D.C. Chapter of the Republican National Committee. I was elected in May '68 for a four year term pursuant to the Act of Congress that regulates elections here in the Nation's Capital. I hope to be reelected again on May 2 of this year to the same office. I mention that because I do think that in that capacity I have an opportunity to know our people, to know how they feel and how they think across the community because that is how Members of Congress know how the system works, and it is against that background that I speak.

As a preliminary statement, I would like to say this, too. I read that you, Mr. Chairman, don't intend to run for Congress again, if that report in the Washington Post was true, and I guess there's a fifty-fifty chance that it may or may not be true considering the source.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I might say that my friends at the Washington Post were absolutely accurate on that occasion.

Mr. SHIPLEY. Well, I commend them on hitting the bullseye at least once in 1972, and I will keep a sharp eye for any replication of that high grade performance.

On behalf of all of the citizens of the District, black and white, rich and poor, the whole 756,000, I think we have disagreed with you from time to time but we all owe you a great debt of gratitude for the attention you have given particularly to revenue proposals you have sort of loaded on us now and then, the tax increases we could have done without, but we have found you to be fair, professional and thorough, and always serving in the highest traditions of public service, and I want to take this occasion, in case I don't have it again, to say, on behalf of our people, that we do appreciate all that you've done and we will miss you here in the Nation's Capital and I don't know whether you can send us somebody else, but I hope that we continue to have men of your experience and consideration to exercise the constitutional responsibility that Congress has in legislating for the District of Columbia.

Mr. ABERNETIY. Thank you very much, and if you wish to take more time on this subject, you may proceed.

Mr. SHIPLEY. It's fairly safe, considering we're in different parties and you're not running and I am, but I would say also in all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that the same thing goes for Chairman John McMillan, that we differ with him from time to time, but he has provided great leadership and has performed a great service for the nation, because, as we read in the history books, this is the city of the nation, the city of all 206 million Americans and it has a very unique and special status under the Federal Constitution for very sound, feasible reasons, and it is the responsibility of every Member of Congress to pay close attention to the Nation's Capital, the permanent seat of the Federal Government because of its vast importance to the welfare of the nation, and indeed, to the peace and happiness of the entire world.

I would say the same for Congressman Broyhill and the other Members who have worked so long in the vineyard, and I would have to mention that your colleagues in the other body, Senator Dan Inouye, and Tom Eagleton, in a much shorter span of time have been extremely diligent in serving their responsibilities.

Now, getting on to the problem of these various home rule bills, I think very strongly that Congress should defer consideration of any type of legislation like this for the present time. I think that all of us in the Republican Party and indeed all Americans, basically, agree that the right to elect local officials is basic to the American philosophy of government and representative government, but I think that all of us should concentrate more on getting voting representation in Congress.

I have noticed an up-beat throughout our whole community with the election of Reverend Fauntroy to Congress. We have a voice here. We would only hope that Congress would take appropriate action to give us voting representation in Congress. I'm not as hopeful as those who talk about giving us two Senators and two Congressmen. I am more inclined to the proposal that the late Senator Dirksen made frequently, and that is to provide us with one voting member of Congress and such other representation as Congress from time to time shall see fit to add. We all know that the Federal Constitution provides in the Senate that the States are represented, not the people, and to try to give the District two Senators probably would lead to bogging down voting representation for a long time to come. But, as nearly as I can tell from talking to Senators from both sides, they have no enthusiasm at all for two more senators to further dilute the hundred man body that makes up the United States Senate today. And I think also there is a constitutional question about that no state's representation in the Senate can be diminished without its consent, and some are very concerned about that constitutional aspect of the problem.

RETROCESSION TO MARYLAND

Passing on to the seventeen or more bills pending before this Committee, I certainly think Chairman McMillan's bill to recede certain portions of the District to Maryland has considerable merit. It ought to be studied very carefully. However, I must say this to the Committee, that I know of no significant body of people in the District of Columbia in either political party or in any community organization